The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

from the sort-it-out-later dept

I'm beginning to notice a disturbing pattern in those who defend SOPA (formerly the E-PARASITE Act, until someone realized just how bad that looked). The text of the law makes massive changes to the regulatory framework of the internet, to the point that it raises some serious constitutional questions (should it ever actually pass). However, wherever that happens, they put in a little note insisting that the law doesn't do what the plain language says it does. Take, for example these little bits right at the opening:

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

Of course, you can claim that all you want, but if the actual text of the bill does both of those things... well, then that's a problem isn't it? It's the same thing with the streaming portions of the bill, where it's unclear if the authors of the bill even recognize how their bill will be interpreted. Or, sometimes, it comes in the form of defenders of the bill just outright misstating what's in the bill; such as the repeated claims by people involved with drafting the bill that it solely focuses on foreign "rogue sites," when the bill actually has sections that focus on domestic sites as well -- including ones that clearly are not "rogue."

But, one of the more bizarre situations comes in the growing conflict between the State Department and the rest of the Obama administration on SOPA/PIPA. We've heard from multiple people within the State Department that they're horrified by SOPA, explaining that it will undercut a significant amount of their Internet Freedom efforts around the globe, and completely wipe out any moral high ground (already tenuous) that the US had on the claims of keeping a free and open internet. In fact, we found it odd to see VP Joe Biden (who undoubtedly fully supports SOPA) reading a speech that was probably intended for Hillary Clinton to read, in which he stated a bunch of arguments in favor of not regulating the internet, to avoid stifling innovation and not breaking what works today. Large sections of his speech could be used -- verbatim -- as arguments against SOPA.

Realizing that they were going to run into all sorts of trouble for this, Rep. Howard Berman tried to cut this obvious conflict off at the pass, by asking Hillary Clinton to put forth a statement that the State Department supports enforcement of intellectual property rights, and doesn't see a conflict between internet freedom and enforcing intellectual property. We've already seen some in the pro-SOPA camp use this to claim there's no conflict with SOPA at all. First of all, this isn't true. The text of Clinton's statement makes no direct reference to the overreaching and overly broad nature of SOPA. It just talks in generalities. So, when Clinton says something like:

There is no contradiction between intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and ensuring freedom of expression on the Internet.

It's kind of a meaningless statement, because everything depends on the specifics. Can you enforce IP rights without compromising freedom of expression online? Most (though not all) would argue yes. But can you also enforce IP rights in a way that everyone agrees restricts freedom of expression? The answer is clearly yes. For example, if the policy to protect IP rights was to simply "shut down all .com sites," I think everyone would agree that's going too far. Point being: whether or not a particular enforcement scheme violates free speech rights is dependent on the details. And, it's worth noting that Clinton's statement was penned prior to SOPA being released.

But, in the end, we're left with the same situation I described at the beginning of this post. Just because Clinton says there's no conflict, that doesn't mean the actual text of the bill agrees with that. You can't just insist that what the plain text of the bill says isn't in the bill. That's no way to regulate.

Re:

I'm curious as to what you think would be going 'too far' in efforts to stop copyright infringement. What would have to happen for you to say, "Sure, it's morally wrong and illegal, but this is too much?" Where does it end for you?

Here, I'll get you started. Which of the following (if any) would you consider to be inappropriate for enforcing copyrights:

Make it illegal to link to infringing content
Make it illegal to communicate the location of infringing content in any way
Outlawing of onion routers
Making copyright infringement a criminal as opposed to a civil offense
Make circumventing a government Internet block an offense similar to the DCMA's anti-circumvention clause
Deep packet inspection of all Internet traffic
Mandatory server registration / P2P ban (IE No computer can accept incoming connections unless properly licensed and registered)
Mandatory government identification code for accessing the Internet
Government mandated operating system backdoors
Government monitoring of software / activity on personal computers
Deem computers without a TCM chip illegal computing devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing)
Noncommercial open-source software ban

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I shouldn't be surprised by this, but the AC here doesn't seem to be interested in seriously discussing these issues but rather simply wants to show up, figuratively take a dump in the comments section, then leave.

I can only assume that, since you failed to address any of my questions you don't have a problem with any of those measures and that when copyright infringement continues unabated you would consider them appropriate for legislation.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ninja, I don't deny anything. But there is a point where the question of personal freedoms will butt up against the laws, and decisions will be made.

Consider speed limits driving your car, and the side of the road you have to drive on. I consider both to be limitations of my freedom of expression (I should be able to express myself in my car as fast as I want, where I want... without the government getting in the way of my free speech).

I am smart enough to understand that my unlimited rights to free expression are balanced against the rights of others. There are limits to almost everything.

I feel that many who openly (or quietly) support illegal or illicit activities online are forgetting the rights of others. They wouldn't do in real life what they do online, and that a clear indication that the laws just have not caught up to the online world.

So rubberpant list is sort of moot, because it isn't really very relevant. It's not just a question of limiting anyone's particular rights, but looking at the balance between all players.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The point is simple: You pirates are the ones that have caused the most harm to the internet.

If the internet becomes more restrictive, and things like TOR and VPNs are regulated, it will be YOUR fault; Because you were selfish and greedy, took advantage of your internet access and ignored the rights of others, things had to change.

In a society, people police themselves or the government does it for them.

You couldn't police yourself, so these new regulations are nobody's fault but your own.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, I missed this before excoriating you for running away. My bad.

I think the list couldn't be more relevant than it is. We're talking about how far society is willing to go to enforce copyright law.

My point is that it's going to be impossible to stop copyright infringement without doing some or all of those things, because each measure is easily bypassed without also implementing the next measure and that doing so would change the Internet so dramatically that it would cease to be what it is.

So, if SOPA or something like ever becomes law and copyright infringement continues unabated, how far are you willing to go? Would you ever throw your hands up and say, "We've done all we can or should do?"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That is exactly what the Betamax ruling and the DMCA currently allows. Youtube cannot be blocked censored or banned because some users infringes on someone else's copyright. Why? Because there is a large ammount of free speech and other legal content on the site as well.

SOPA will allow for future YouTubes to be blocked for acting exactly as Youtube does currently. That is unacceptable to me and all the people whose speech would be censored.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Zack, in fairness, what YouTube is doing only works because of what was considered a pretty tame little back door for "service providers" back at the time it was created.

Pre-DMCA, what Youtube does today would have been highly illegal, and they would have been sued into obscurity in minutes. The notification and take down provisions, which were intended only to keep the most innocent of hosts from liablity, has instead become a business model.

What the DMCA giveth, the new laws will somewhat take away, limit, or obstruct. It's a result of too many companies, too many websites, and too many projects trying to hide themselves under the service provider tent. Once the government figured out (with the help of the media companies) what was going on, it was only a matter of time before corrective action was taken.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So you are saying that Youtube should be illegal and anyone who uses it legally to spread their protected speech or legal copyrighted content should be censored all because a few bad apples post infringing content? Gotcha.

In reality land, Youtube was protected prior to the DMCA because of the Betamax ruling. In that ruling Sony's Betmax player and other VCRs could not be blocked from the market because a few of the uses were infringing. The Supreme Court's ruling clearly stated that banning the Betamax because of the infringing uses would have cause irreparable harm to those who rely on it for legal uses.

That is what SOPA intends to do. Those who support SOPA do not care about the legal content and the free speech that will, not maybe, be censored.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Except Viacom lost. Big time at that.

To say that YouTube was founded on infringement is a baseless accusation. YouTube was founded on the same principles as Facebook, MySpace, GeoCities, Twitter and many many other user controlled sites. Those principals are the ability for the users of the internet to express themselves and share content with one another.

That is noble and should be encouraged. SOPA will discourage such innovation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Okay...what about the videos Viacom put up themselves, by people who made accounts to deliberately look like they're your average Youtuber (i.e. to look like there's no official connection with Viacom), and then suing over? At the very least, it made Viacom look like a fool, at the very worst, they're guilty of bait and entrapment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why are you legacy content delivery dinosaurs so pissed at youtube? I don't think I've ever watched anything on there that infringes copyright. I have, however spent countless hours laughing my ass off at peoples stupid videos of their crazy antics.
Come to think about it, that's probably it isn't it? You don't want me getting free entertainment from my peers. You'd much rather I was paying for a new boat for you, by paying for your big label content, wouldn't you?
That must be the point, because piracy won't decrease noticeably from SOPA, you want a weapon that you can use to attack your legitimate competition. And the really shocking thing is that you have managed to buy/trick the government into swallowing your lies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Zack, I don't know who the other AC is...but I will try to keep this on a more level piece of ground.

First, the betamax ruling, while making VCRs legal, didn't suddenly make it legal to knock off bootleg tapes. It certainly didn't make it legal for stores that sell the VCRs to also sell bootleg tapes.

Youtube as a technology is absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely legal. There is nothing in the new law that makes their machine illegal. However, the new law DOES address the way in which they use their machine to make money. YouTube will (like many others) have to choose ways of doing business that do not put it at significant risk of legal liability.

Youtube (and it's technology) can stay online forever. There is no risk to the technology. The risk is in how it is used. Since Youtube itself is the user, they are liable not from a technology standpoint (it's all legal) but in a usage. Since they directly profit from the usage, in the same manner that a bootleg tape seller would, they are liable only on the content side, not the technology side.

It wouldn't blog any legit uses of YouTube, provided that Youtube doesn't allow it's site to be used for piracy and infringement. The same applies for P2P sites, file hosts, and all those other business out there. Provided they work to keep illegal content off their sites, they will be around for your enjoyment for years to come.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

and way does youtube has to change and no the mpaa and teh riaa, i mean hte technollogy is enabling a lot of things that in the past where only dreams and the was that should change are the ones that are using them to the fullest?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I am not claiming that bootleg tapes or other forms of offline and online infringement should be made legal.

The DMCA addressed the issue of online infringement in a manner that was actually fair to all parties involved. The owner of the copyright is the only entity or person responsible for policing their copyrights. That responsibility should not be thrust onto a third party.

Under SOPA, it will no longer be the copyright owner who is responsible for policing, it will now be the service provider. Under SOPA, YouTube will be responsible for reviewing 48 hours of video uploaded ever hour. They will be responsible for ensuring that all proper licenses and releases are in place. That is an undue burden for a single provider. They will not be able to do this job without an army of lawyers. If they were to go this route, the service would be unusable by the public that currently uses it. And it will fail.

So yes it SOPA would end up censoring legal speech and other legit content. If the regulatory burdens don't kill the services, the false accusations of copyright infringement will.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

DH, no, I am not suggesting that they are rescinding parts of the DMCA, only that they are effectively narrowing the definitions so that not everyone can hide out as a "service provider". That is one of DMCA's major weaknesses, and one that has spawned almost every web2.0 business model around.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Narrowing the definitions of the DMCA requires cutting a path through the forest of content with a flamethrower? That's narrow?!

I embed a Youtube video to my channel and someone says it's illegal and suddenly the mere accusation of it means I have to fight against my service provider, financial services, and the government on a mere accusation? Hello?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I love how you go on and on about FUD about a dog to disguise how embedding a video on a personal website can still make a website liable for damages. But by all means, instead of saying FUD, explain.

Otherwise, you're using FUD, not me.

If I put up streaming content of me watching a movie with friends, which gets embedded from Youtube, why should Viacom, Sony, or any other corporation care? Bear in mind, a theater had someone jailed for videotaping a few minutes of footage of Twilight. Viacom tried to sue Youtube even though they put up their content on Youtube themselves.

If you're going to chant FUD, be able to back it up with something yourself. You're making it harder to take you seriously.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

DH, no, I am not suggesting that they are rescinding parts of the DMCA, only that they are effectively narrowing the definitions so that not every "service provider" will still be protected. That is one of DMCA's major strengths, and one that has spawned almost every web2.0 business model around, from were the old gatekeepers can not suck all the profit allowing to bypass them and limiting the profits they obtain as gatekeepers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Many of us freetards have stated what we think is balanced, and despite despite your claims that we all blindly follow Mike, there's some noticeable differences among many of our ideas.

So, please list out specifics on your ideas of what a reasonable balance between corporations in control of copyrights, artists (both independent and those employed by the corporations), non-copyright based industries with an obvious stake (such as Google/Youtube and other tech), and the public.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Josh, any time your version of balance starts with "I want to take your product and use it by my rules, not yours", you will always find yourself losing. It is a pretty hard place to start a discussion.

You have to remember that while tech moves forward very quickly, media companies, content distribution, and such are always behind the game. They are always invested in the previous technology, and they are always one step behind those of us on the cutting edge.

When music was on vinyl, the cutting edge wanted it on laser disc.

When music was on CD, the cutting edge wanted it as MP3s.

When music was on MP3s, the cutting edge wanted it lossless and in 20 different formats...

and so on.

So before anything, you have to remember that, no matter what is "possible", in the real world not everyone adopts right on day one. In the case of the movie and music industries, that means that not everything that is possible is actively supported on the supply side. Yet, change comes, example the Blu-ray / DVD / Digital version combo packs, a step for me that is in the right direction, giving the purchaser of license plenty of options, and what is effectively a backup copy.

I think the true balance doesn't come just in laws, it comes in respect. If a content creator doesn't want to be part of the "new media universe", then that choice should be respected. If that happened, the rest of it would be easy as pie. The "new universe" artists could use youtube, P2P, Google, and whatever else they want to do what they want, when they want, and everyone who wants to enjoy it that way could.

Remember, a Hollywood movie company saying "we don't want our movie pirated" doesn't stop you from making a movie of your own and putting it on P2P. Not putting their movie on P2P for them is an element of respect.

My feeling is that if there wasn't so much blatent piracy, so many aggressive misuses of content, that things would probably work out better in the long run for people who just make accidental use of something. I would also think that, without piracy, it would be much easier for media companies to accept the idea of transferring product from one media to another, say from your DVD to your smart phone, or your CD to your mp3, etc.

It should be noted as well that the CD is on it's very last legs, the music industry is looking to phase out all physical delivery, and to move to a fully digital universe. People will be easily able to move their digital files around, so the whole "pirate because I can't circumvent" argument will be history.

Specifics? There really aren't any. Until piracy stops being the driving force of every discussion, there will be little balance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Of course in a world where no one breaks the law and everyone respects everyone else's rights, everything would be fine and dandy.

Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world .We live in a world where that doesn't happen. So we need a balance between respect of individual rights and prosecution of law breakers.

SOPA does not provide that. It puts the prosecution of law breakers over the rights of individuals. It does not allow for a distinction of legal content and free speech on sites content companies deem "dedicated to infringing activities"

We have shown numerous times just what sort of sites the content industry deems infringing. Many of which are completely legal. Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Craigslist, eBay etc all would have been blocked from the web had they come under this law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You have to remember that while tech moves forward very quickly, media companies, content distribution, and such are always behind the game. They are always invested in the previous technology, and they are always one step behind those of us on the cutting edge."

We know this, and quite frankly we don't care. If you're in a business that is so affected by and dependant on technology, you need to keep up with the pace of change. Incompetence is no excuse.

"Yet, change comes, example the Blu-ray / DVD / Digital version combo packs, a step for me that is in the right direction, giving the purchaser of license plenty of options, and what is effectively a backup copy."

Great example! Low-res DVD, Blu-ray chock full of unskippable crap and a DRM-riddled digital copy. That certainly demonstrates your earlier point about them being behind the times.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

and the vcr was nothing without content.

Just so happens that what was good for vcr makers was also incredibly good for the movie business, despite being a vector for infringement.

Someone please put up some convincing evidence that infringement harms any business at all, because it seems that it is actually either neutral or there is a slight possibility that it is actually generally beneficial to sales (we already have evidence that in particular instances it has driven sales).

Because every other part of this argument depends on whether infringement harms sales. If it doesn't we don't need the debate and we certainly don't need the massive overreach of legislation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

as far as i know they were given the oportunity to be the first to implement a itunes like store with the napster but guess what they sued and make it disapear instead of making use of it and what you said about using technology of the past is not true they use video formats of the apst but they make movies with the latest technology is one of the reasons it cost millons like avatar, they dont want to adapt and use the technoloy and the distribution their customer wants so that only leaves other person to come ant steal their momentum, but again i dont think the mpaa and the riaa knows about economics 101

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So before anything, you have to remember that, no matter what is "possible", in the real world not everyone adopts right on day one.

No argument there. The point is that not only didn't the industry adopt close to day one, they tried to prevent anyone else to adopt. E.g. they tried to claim it illegal when I ripped a CD I bought myself for my mp3 player. Such bullshit just ain't gonna fly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

any time your version of balance starts with "I want you to buy our product and use it by the rules that we write for ourself and you were never invited to discuss", you will always find yourself losing. It is a pretty hard place to start a discussion of balance when you began with a rules that the bigger stateholder (the Public) was never allowed to participate in its development.

Because when the technology makes the rules written by the gatekeeper for the gatekeeper became the only thing that keep them as gatekeepers does not means that those rules are balanced or that those rules must be more important that the civil rights of the public.

If I have to choose between a industry not having as high a profit as they will like, and a increase difficulty in expressing myself that industry can began to loose money for all I care.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

People would not watch content for FREE in real life (over the cable/internet connection that they PAID for)?

How many people in real life get paid for work they did 95 years ago? Of these, how many of these people's families are still receiving checks for the work their parents did 95+ years ago?

What defines who gets perpetual payment for discrete work? Why does this only apply to 'art' and not to 'useful' works such as the internet (when was the last time the author of the internet received a royalty check?)...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The concentrated self-referential irony here is so caustic I should really be typing this reply with gloves and protective eyewear. It's like you don't even recognize that saying 'all infringement is on new works' as a response to multiple generations of copyright protection is a rationalization or that accusing someone of infringement is an attempt to change the subject from copyright to the activities of the poster you responded to...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

what did I "rip" hey I have no problem with IP owners, ut let's be real. what ever happened to "art for art's sake" what ever happened to the "starving artist" this was a badge of honor. What "Honor" comes from Hollywood or the Music recording industry today? You want "US" to quit "ripping you off" so you can buy blow and Hookers??? ( see we can use ad hominem attacks too) when the biggest Movies and records in history are losing Money (according to the content providers) WHY THE HELL DO YOU CONTINUE???????

I could give a rats ass about the newest song or latest movie. I read BOOKS, My imagination is a LOT bigger then any crappy movie you could ever make.

When Lohans, Kardashian, and their ilk are what content providers produce why would we NOT rip you assholes off??

You want the Moral high Ground, you have to be Moral first

(But I'm not any of those people, why blame me? No shit, and I don't copy Movies or music yet YOU blame ME)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Of course they would share things in real life, in a small manner, with a friend or two from time to time. They wouldn't put it online and share it with 1 million of their closest friends... they wouldn't broadcast it to the world... they might knock off a copy for their buddy at work.

The issue of piracy isn't ABSOLUTELY stopping every possible and potential way for something to be shared on a personal level, rather to address the large scale, widespread, and unlimited sharing of files between millions of people who don't know each other at all. The scale right now is so out of whack, that it is beyond understanding.

The answers aren't black and white...they are grey. Once you get to that point, you will be better able to understand how the world works.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you don't work for a corporation or in some other way gain financial benefit from the current, corrupt system of IP laws, you really should find a different hobby because you do appear to work so hard and spend enough time for it to constitute at least a part time job just to attack anyone who questions or disagrees with IP maximalist policies and practices.

If you're not motivated to shill so hard for a financial benefit, then you must have issues with self-righteous zealotry or you're secretly an IP pirate with severe self-loathing issues.

Re: Re:

You forgot the best parts of it, give no mechanism for which abuse can be tracked or punished thus giving no incentive for not being abused.

The DMCA is just classic, instead of requiring that you send in triplicate the same notice, to not only the service provider but to some central database so the use of it could be tracked to see what was being used for they require nothing, not even disclosure is like the people who made the DMCA wanted it to be abused, further there is no penalties for sending bogus DMCA's to anyone unless the AG gets involved which almost guarantees that nobody funding his campaign will get in hot water for doing so, that is just brilliant and now they want to expand that crap giving more chances for abuse like never before and even less oversight of what happens.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

100 years of intentional greedy exploitation of artists and consumers by rich people doesn't hold a candle to a bunch of consumers who would rather pay for food and shelter than over-priced entertainment because said rich people have fucked the economy in the ass so good paying jobs are hard to come by?

Well, by all means, continue to shill for the 1% if that's whose table scraps you're getting to pay your mortgage.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I agree wholeheartedly. If your business model relies on violating the property rights of the public by lobbying for a corrupt legislative system to extend copyright duration beyond any reasonable limit and thus keep the legitimate property of the public out of the public domain, then you need to adapt your business model.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

appears? I love that word. I use it frequently when I have no idea what a user's problem is. It appears to be(insert some bullshit line that sounds good, but has no basis in reality.) Our id10t's behind the keyboard buy it every time. Only because they dont know any better.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"appears" in this case because, unlike Mike, I won't claim to know what the future holds with absolute certainty. Based on what I can see, the decline of original content, and the upswing of "remixed" content seems mostly to continue to create a feedback loop that gets smaller and smaller until it becomes meaningless.

If you think the Hollywood retread movie thing is bad, imagine if everyone could do it without restriction. It would be craptastic.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

I'm sorry if wanting to encourage innovation to make life better for you and for content creators is "desperation." I think it's just a good idea.

Some of us try to keep idiots from shooting themselves in their own feet... and then we get attacked for it. Weird.

It seems obvious to me that you are simply advancing your pro-piracy, anti-copyright point of view. The whole "encourage innovation" thing is just a vapid catchphrase. Innovation will proceed nicely with property laws being enforced. If you really want to be a part of the solution, instead of just a whiny zealot, then why aren't you writing about how you'd improve SOPA? For example, how would you define rogue sites?

Re:

This post reads like step 3 on the grief scale... bargaining. You are past the anger, and now you are trying to come up with ways to negotiate with it.

Warning Mike; the next step is depression. Try not to be too sad.

We'll see about that, sparky. The Google Abolition Act - the assault on safe harbor - is going to be dropped. Wyden's hold is still in place and other congresscritters are defecting. The Internet has been roused from its' slumber, and social media is crawling with news of this.

The mobilization is beginning, and we have not yet begun to fight. I look forward to the day the e-parasites in the movie and recording industry are as bankrupt as the buggy whip manufacturers before them and paid MAFIAA/Chamber of Commerce shills have to get real jobs.

"Just because Clinton says there's no conflict, that doesn't mean the actual text of the bill agrees with that. You can't just insist that what the plain text of the bill says isn't in the bill. That's no way to regulate."

And just because mike says there is conflict does not mean there is. Read the bill yourself, look at the interpretations, and decide for yourself is all I'm advocating.

Re:

Indeed a nice article. But Mike doesn't have to say a word if you read the damned thing. There is conflict, there is plenty of conflict. This bill is so bad that even some artists coalitions have already spoken against it (in a soft way not to look like they support piracy lol). Mike wrote about this a few days back.

I've read a few parts of this horrible monster and it's the next worst thing that happened to the US after Patriot Act. And it isn't even a law yet. But the fact that some1 even supports that in the US is very disturbing. And the Founding Fathers surely are revolving in their graves with that.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

What they intend is never what they actually mean. ACs and trolls alike say that Mike and those of us who happen to agree with his opinion are the ones who are drinking the kool-aid. I say it must be the other way around. You actually swallow what the government does without question, and believe that both the government and the SOPA supporters are doing this for the betterment of the American public?

Whether or not an application of the law would constitute a chilling effect on the First Amendment would be up to the courts. This is just a statutory interpretation issue. If the court finds a use of SOPA does create a chilling effect, then SOPA cannot be applied.

Re:

And the courts will weigh in in advance, or ex post, once hundreds of sites have been shutdown through enforcement or through no longer being able to operate given the burden placed on them by this legislation?

Re: Re: Re:

It's you who lies.
You're desperate to get a weapon that will allow you to crush all alternate legitimate content simply with dubious copyright allegations, so that you can herd the public, bereft of alternatives towards you crap.

Re: Re: Re:

there's law and then there's law

Has there been a test of the legal theory involved? If a law contains a contradiction like "(1) This Act shall not be construed to ban X, (2) X is hereby banned", what will the courts do? Will a judge go with the part that's longer? Clearer? Less restrictive of individual rights? Better for society? More similar to other laws? Do such restrictions work?

Can we be really, really sure that we can violate the ban and not be convicted under the law, or should we obey the ban just to be on the safe side?

And even if it's a sure thing that we won't be convicted, does that mean the authorities won't arrest us, seize our equipment, commandeer our web sites and/or ruin our businesses before even setting a court date? Is there a realistic way to sue the government for doing so?

So...

How do we go about proposing the Civilian and Criminal Penalties for Unconstitutional, Misleading, and Irresponsible Lawmakers Act?

You know the one that for each "point" they build up in a bill/act that turns out to be unconstitutional they are held liable, sometimes on a criminal scale, for their transgressions against their people...

Seriously, I give up on these hand puppets. If they are willing to live with giving up liberties and freedoms in the US to ensure that no one does anything with their content, then I will wait for the dust to clear and vote for the least corrupt politician next election. These guys have proven repeatedly that preservation of their industry is far more important than innovation and liberties.
I for one believe them and will remind everyone who in the House and Senate voted for this crap. In the meantime, my VPN works just fine, thank you very much.

SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

As you stated in your article I will be affected and so will 1,000's of other smaller DIY bands who love to share their music and just people to hear them.I personally have never been into music for money.I am an original punk rocker from 1976 and have jammed in bands since the summer of 1972.I currently play in two bands, "Big Meat Hammer" and "The Lynn Rebels" and I share 6 full physical albums which have been released of various acts I have put together.I share freely with the world via my website,facebook,myspace, and P2P.I have even seen my music posted by folks on youtube and just wrote to a guy in Argentina who asked me nicely if I could write down my lyrics to a song I did with The Transplants (1976-79) Boston,Mass.
I will fight this piece of toilet paper bill in any way I can.I will not be shut up by the big money assholes of the RIAA & MPAA.Both of them can come over to my place and suck my Welsh Corgie Dog's dick.He might enjoy that !!! I have refused to support Corporate Rock since the mid-70's and the RIAA Artists got shit from me.I became a punk because of your attitude in the 70's when you stopped taking chances on cool music and became the bland pieces of shit that you are today.
YOU WILL NOT RESTRAIN THE FREE SPEECH OF 1,000's OF US BANDS !!!
And all of should remember who in Government have voted YES to take away our rights.We need to do an investigation on each and every one of these traitors to see what donations they have gotten and where they came from.
YOU IN GOVERNMENT ARE PLAYING WITH FIRE !!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists

Why are you even here? What do you hope to achieve?
Most readers here are enlightened to your lies and propaganda. Those who haven't already realized how hopelessly deluded you are are going to read these comments, see you posting like a deranged lunatic with quips like:

"God, you people are fucking idiot children."

and what side do you think they are going to come down on? Are you completely retarded or are you just trying your best to get there?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists

TPB isn't breaking the law. If they were, the Swedes would have shut them down by now. Of course, that's Sweden's law, and you want everyone to follow America's law. Sorry, it's a global marketplace, not a US marketplace, no matter how much you wish it to be.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists

Re: SOPA/E-PREDATOR Screws over us DIY Artists

gorehound, please.

Nobody is stopping your rights to distribute your content in any manner you choose. The only issue is that those artists, labels, or rights holders who don't want the content shared in the manners you choose to use should not be FORCED to use your methods. If your method is truly innovative, if it is truly the way of the future, they will come to you.

Perhaps they should rewrite it then so it says what they mean it to say.

Why again do corporations get to write all the laws and bills for America? And why do those same American corporations then go to other countries to try to right the laws for others too? Something is wrong there. "We the people" was not in reference to Corporations, and Corporations were never meant to be considered people.

If artists or anyone not wishing to "copyright" thier material could label it as "open source" under a GPL that would be great. Then, anyone wishing to make a dollar could take thier chances with copyrights and the legal requirements associated with them. Let them fight thier own battles, through whichever label they wish.

There are of course "rogue" sites which flaunt thier content and make it available to anyone. Royalties should be enforced and websites sued/tried in international courts.

Afterall, the implication seems to be that we are tired of China and others recieving goods free of charge. We are also especially fearfull of the malicious intent of rogue and "friendly" States. This bill is the permission slip to cut these people off. Will this power be abused, probably.